zlacker

>>vermon+(OP)
This story is really alarming because as described, the police ran a face recognition tool based on a frame of grainy security footage and got a positive hit. Does this tool give any indication of a confidence value? Does it return a list (sorted by confidence) of possible suspects, or any other kind of feedback that would indicate even to a layperson how much uncertainty there is?

The issue of face recognition algorithms performing worse on dark faces is a major problem. But the other side of it is: would police be more hesitant to act on such fuzzy evidence if the top match appeared to be a middle-class Caucasian (i.e. someone who is more likely to take legal recourse)?

>>danso+02
Intresting and related, a team made a neat "face depixelizer" that takes a pixelated image and uses machine learning to generate a face that should match the pixelated image.

What's hilarious is that it makes faces that look nothing like the original high-resolution images.

https://twitter.com/Chicken3gg/status/1274314622447820801

>>Pxtl+23
What's sad is that a tech entrepreneur will definitely add that feature and sell it to law enforcement agencies that believe in CSI magic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk

>>danso+v6
And another entrepreneur can add a feature to generate 10 different faces which match the same pixelation, and sell it to the defence.

>>barrke+dh
Doubt that many people can afford to hire an expert witness, or hire someone to develop bespoke software for their trial.